PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL LAW: ‘Relativism’ is a Fallacious Argument

I want to try to keep this one easy to understand. We have all heard the argument, and many of us have even embraced it: the argument that we shouldn’t act as though one belief, nation or culture is better than another; or that different things can be equal, or true for different people at different times. Broadly speaking, this belief is called ‘relativism.’ But there is a problem with relativism: it is fallacious. In other words, it is not true. Depending on how it is expressed, it is either a mistake in logic, a deception or even a deliberate lie. Sadly, the reason so many have been deceived by relativism is because our schools no longer teach reason and critical thinking. If they did, then as many who could understand the material would know — not think, but know that relativism is a self-defeating idea. Luckily, this one is easy to prove.

If I tell you that we shouldn’t judge one religion over another, or one culture or a system of government over another because they might both be equally true or equal to different people at different times, I am making a value judgment! In other words, I just did what I am telling you not to do. So, if my argument is true, then I should not be telling you not to judge because, in the process of telling you that, I am judging you. By excluding the possibility that my judgment might be equally true for me as your relativism, or that it might be true at a different time, you are doing the very thing you claim is wrong.

Two conflicting ideas cannot both be equally true at the same time. This is called a contradiction. You cannot tell me that we should not judge without making a judgment in the process of telling me not to judge. So relativism is self-defeating because it is self-contradicting. So, why would anyone argue for relativism? There are three reasons:

1 — They are ignorant: they simply do not know what they are saying, nor do they even know enough about it to know they are ignorant. Sadly, this is the majority of Americans. We have been taught this lie in school, by teachers we trust, so we believe it is true because the tools we need to know better were kept from us by those very same teachers.

2 — People who should know better allow their emotions to over-rule their intellect. Some people who do know relativism is a self-defeating idea still argue for it out of a desire to treat people ‘fairly.’ The problem here is that fairness is a subjective term based on value judgments which, if you are telling people they should not make, places you in contradiction to both the claim of relativism and fairness. In other words, ‘good intentions’ sometimes lead people who know better to double their mistake.

3 — People who know better intentionally argue for relativism so as to persuade you to surrender to their will. They seek power over you and as many others as they can gain, and they argue relativism in an attempt to get you to surrender out of some perceived notion of guilt for having been ‘unfair.’ In this case — as with the media, teachers and politicians — relativism is a deliberate lie. At this point, it is not only fallacious, but it becomes propaganda.

But I can prove that relativism is a lie to you in even simpler terms. When people argue for ‘fairness’ over something like…racism: do they ever include sports in their arguments? Why is that? The answer is simple: they are not arguing for equality of outcome or even opportunity as they claim. They are arguing for power. They never apply their arguments to sports because we all know that some people are better than others and that skin color has very little to do with it. We also know that, if you are good enough, and you have the desire, you can find an opportunity to succeed. This is why so many NFL, basketball and baseball stars can be found playing in the majors when they never went to college. But things are different when we turn to politics.

Once we move to this arena, it is easier to exploit the individual desire for justice. All you need to do is make someone feel as though they are being ‘unfair,’ or in some cases, ‘racist,’ and you can silence them. By telling someone that this culture is no better than that one, or one religion is no better than the next, or that government is equal to another, and then tying it to something such as racism, people can be manipulated into accepting the relativist lie. They can also use personal greed and the desire for pleasure without personal cost to do the same thing. Entertainment media does this all the time. They tie something like ‘fairness’ or ‘racism’ to a action society frowns upon so as to silence any moral opposition. This is what ‘Pro-Choice’ vs “anti-abortion’ is all about. The language is designed to make you feel like you are ‘enslaving’ someone if you object to the murder of an unborn human being. It is why the media always paints the issue in terms of freedom for women vs. a war on women. The whole idea is that the woman’s choice is equally moral to those who oppose murdering babies. So, if you object, you are ‘judging’ the person who has the abortion, thereby making you the one who is unfair and, thus, immoral. But look: by portraying someone as unfair and unjust for opposing murder, you are making a value judgment. That negates the argument of the pro-abortionist, as well as the broader lie of relativism.

So the point is simple: some things are better than others. Some religions are better; some cultures are superior; some governments more just. This is a fact that cannot be changed and, if anyone tries to argue differently, remember: they are telling you their way is better than yours; and hypocrisy is a sure sign that someone is on the wrong side of right.

“However, as it is impossible for the whole race of mankind to be united in one great society, they must necessarily divide into many, and form separate states, commonwealths, and nations, entirely independent of each other, and yet liable to a mutual intercourse. Hence arises a third kind of law to regulate this mutual intercourse, called “the law of nations,” which, as none of these states will acknowledge a superiority in the other, cannot be dictated by any, but depends entirely upon the rules of natural law, or upon mutual compacts, treaties, leagues, and agreements between these several communities: in the construction also of which compacts we have no other rule to resort to, but the law of nature; being the only one to which all the communities are equally subject; and therefore the civil law(c) very justly observes, that quod naturalis ratio inter omnes homines constituit, vocatur jus gentium.” [Sir William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Law of England in Four Books, Vol. 1[1753] INTRODUCTION: OF THE STUDY OF NATURE AND EXTENT OF THE LAWS OF ENGLAND, SECTION 1: ON THE STUDY OF THE LAW] [extract]

QUOD NATURALIS RATIO INTER OMNES HOMINES CONSTITUIT, VOCATUR JUS GENTIUM. That which natural reason has established among all men is called the “law of nations.” 1 Bl.Comm. 43; Dig. 1, 1, 9; Inst. 1, 2, 1.

In conclusion; we do not comprehend arguments of the mind much, but we can say this:
The ego is the temporary part of our selves which seeks to divide if not placed on a leash;
The eternal heart is connected to the all knowing;
The ego is temporary and its only purpose is to anchor the “all-knowing” here in this illusion because it is pointless for the eternal heart to be here otherwise;

the ego has no other purpose! anything of importance it places on the “self” is dangerous; as Menckel stated on politics we say the same about the ego: “The monkey ruling from within the cage.”;

We need to put that ego on a leash: keep it occupied to stop that chatter; return to the “inner silence”‘ we are gods beyond measure; no need to define words; if it feels right then keep or else discard; just the act of having to define words is repugnant to natural law;

I’m not sure whether I agree with you or not. You seem to be making a contradiction, but it is just as possible that I miss-understand your meaning.

I love Blackstone, but when he says the nations are not superior to each other, he does not mean in a moral sense, but a legal sense. We are all equal under the law, but this does not mean we are of equal moral character. The murderer is equal to all others under the law, but he is not equal to those who seek to do good to others. He is of lesser moral character. This principle applies to cultures and nations, as well, and I do not believe Blackstone would disagree with this, either — since he said as much in other writings.

As for Natural Law not seeking to define words: I have to disagree with this. Words that have no definition have no meaning. Natural Law abhors the meaningless. It is to have something without boundary, form or even a governing law. There is no such thing in this universe: everything has a boundary, form and/or governing law. So I would be at odds with this part of your statement — at least, as far as I understand what you were trying to say.

HOWEVER, that said, your explanation of the eternal heart (spirit) needing to put the ego (soul/will) on a leash is brilliant. I have been working on a post that argues this very thing. I just didn’t quite know how to paint the picture so others can see it clearly. Now I do. I’ll be sure to credit you when I ‘borrow’ your analogy. Thanks 🙂

Dear Black3Actual,
what Blackstone is saying is that no-one will agree that another is superior and you proved the point he he; therefore, all we have left then is the law of nations;
as to the analogy: no-one can claim any IP to anything; it all comes from ‘outside’; we are merely ‘receivers’; keep up the great work; be blessed, in peace, bt

Thanks. That is why I tried to reply in a way that showed you and others that I was not sure what you meant. I thought I understood, and now that you explained further, I was correct. Thanks for clarifying things. And thank you for your kind words. Stay safe, my friend 🙂